Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Incidentally, it seems like a lot of people missed this warning from early in the thread:

I would strongly suggest that everyone read the OP carefully, and not start complaining about things that are not in the OP. For instance, I would point out that the OP does not mention any sort of quixotic general ban on photography, but specific kinds of photography that they find harassing. There's no point in arguing about policies that aren't being suggested, so let's please avoid it.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

They pretty much suggest that

Where?

 

[The Broken Ska Record]

And that should not be tolerated in any fashion.

Thread is more about wanting to dictate people's eyeball movements and directions.

No its not. Its about being respectful of others.

 

[diaspora]

As far as photography goes, while following someone around and taking upskirts are violating people's personal space, I can't see anything wrong with taking normal candid shots. Asking permission is quite useful if you're looking to get a pose out of the guy/girl, but sometimes it's not necessary or useful.

I would strongly suggest that everyone read the OP carefully, and not start complaining about things that are not in the OP. For instance, I would point out that the OP does not mention any sort of quixotic general ban on photography, but specific kinds of photography that they find harassing. There's no point in arguing about policies that aren't being suggested, so let's please avoid it.

I think the debate might stem from what is and isn't acceptable/ harassing as far as photography goes.

 

[Mumei]

I feel like the photography thing is also pretty straightforward.

Some people like to be photographed or at least don't mind being photographed.
Some people don't like to be photographed (or want a say over how they are photographed).

It's been argued in this thread that if you put on a costume you must want to be photographed, but that's pretty clearly not true. We have plenty of counterexamples. So if wearing a costume isn't implicit consent, how can we distinguish between the two groups of people? Well, the easiest solution is to simply ask for explicit consent before taking a picture. The people who are cool with it will say yes, the people who aren't will say no. Easy peasy.

Assuming you are an ordinary human being who gives moral weight to the preferences of other people, this is the best solution all around. You won't inadvertently take photos of people who would prefer you not to do so, they won't feel harassed, and all it requires is a modicum of effort in asking before doing.

Promoting this as a convention-wide standard of behavior would be a good starting point.

I agree. And I think there is a substantive difference between "attendee going around sneakily taking pictures of female con attendees" and "attendee taking pictures of kiosks or Important People or wide angle shots of crowds that happen to have people in the frame who did not ask whether they wanted to be photographed." I think that if you take a wide angle shot, someone realizes they are in it, and tells you that they are uncomfortable being photographed, that the polite thing to do would be do delete that particular photo. But I don't think those photos are axiomatically bad, while the former are. And I think that it's self-evident from the way that the people in the OP described the problem that they were talking about the former, and not the latter. Unfortunately, we have people who are attempting to argue the issue by conflating the two, which requires people to explain, repeatedly, that not all photography is being circumscribed.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I find this silly because creepy people are going to be creepy and jerk off (or whatever you think is happening) to photos of girls regardless if they have permission to snap it or not.

I'm not really sure what you think having to ask every person for permission is going to accomplish? Maybe some really creepy socially inept people will be prevented from even approaching girls in the 1st place?

The goal is to create a safe environment by raising awareness and training staff to spot and eject an undesirable element, not to change the behavior of depraved people. This has been explained time and again but you keep on coming with those ridiculous hypotheticals that nobody is trying to police.

 

[Flatline]

It's pretty easy. If the person says they don't want you taking a photo of them, you don't take a photo. If they see you taking a photo of them and ask you to delete it, delete it.

No it really isn't that easy. If the person says they don't want taking a photo of them there must be a no-photography radius of many meters around them just in case someone takes a photo of them. A few of these people on the floor and you pretty much won't be able to photograph anything.

Incidentally, it seems like a lot of people missed this warning from early in the thread:

In case you're referring to me, I already explained why it's one way or another. It would either be a policy against all photos or no policy at all. The supposed middle ground against secret photos is hilariously unrealistic.

 

[devilhawk]

Incidentally, it seems like a lot of people missed this warning from early in the thread:

While true, numerous posters advocating for the OP have stated their wishes to expand the banning to all photography and desire the ability to remove attendees for stares.

Banning upskirts shots is not much of a discussion as I doubt any poster here would be upset with those that are caught doing that being removed from the premises and possibly charged depending on the jurisdiction. The article also mentions being "unwillingly photographed," which could literally mean anything.

 

[Cyan]

While true, numerous posters advocating for the OP have stated their wishes to expand the banning to all photography and desire the ability to remove attendees for stares.

Then people should respond to those posters in particular, and explain why they disagree, rather than jumping into the thread and immediately arguing as though the petition discussed in the article includes a ban on photography (as best I can tell, it barely even mentions photography).

 

[Zen_Arcade]

No it really isn't that easy. If the person says they don't want taking a photo of them there must be a no-photography radius of many meters just in case someone takes a photo of them. A few of these people on the floor and you pretty much won't be able to photograph anything.

No there doesn't. You're over thinking this. No one is going to be mad that they're in the frame of a shot of something else. It's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion based off that article. It's just people saying don't take pervy shots of girls bending over, or following them around to get pictures from different angles.

Essentially they're just saying "Hey, ask before you start taking pictures of me." Not "Ask before taking a picture I might be in." These women are complaining about being the subjects of creepy pictures, not background crowd in a shot that has nothing to do with them.

 

[Ragingnight]

No it really isn't that easy. If the person says they don't want taking a photo of them there must be a no-photography radius of many meters around them just in case someone takes a photo of them. A few of these people on the floor and you pretty much won't be able to photograph anything.

uhh Its not like that at the cons I went to, but maybe its different at SDCC

Usually the people that say no are people that are in a hurry to another place (panels) or their costume is not ready and they don't want a pic of their incomplete cosplay.

I have gotten nos before, but its literally "no, i need to fix it but i'll be back later". I just say okay and turn around and take pictures of other people.

At AX you could literally just walk in the front area in a giant circle and take pictures of cosplays and by the time you get back your starting place, different cosplayers will be there.

I really don't understand what the huge issue is. This doesn't even seem like a photo thing but more people being creepy as fuck by groping others as they pass by.

 

[Flatline]

No there doesn't. You're over thinking this. No one is going to be mad that they're in the frame of a shot of something else. It's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion based off that article. It's just people saying don't take pervy shots of girls bending over, or following them around to get pictures from different angles.

Essentially they're just saying "Hey, ask before you start taking pictures of me." Not "Ask before taking a picture I might be in." These women are complaining about being the subjects of creepy pictures, not background crowd in a shot that has nothing to do with them.

They were talking about surreptitious photography, people don't take surreptitious photos right in front of you to make you aware of it. That's why it's called surreptitious.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

They were talking about surreptitious photography, people don't take surreptitious photos right in front of you. That's why it's called surreptitious.

Yeah, people don't like photos being taken of them without their permission. Even if they weren't in skimpy outfits it would be creepy to follow someone around and take pictures of them.

You honestly wouldn't find it creepy if you found out someone started following you around and taking pictures of you?

Taking a casual photo of a crowd is a lot different then finding a specific person and following them around without them knowing so that you can take pictures of them.

 

[Flatline]

Yeah, people don't like photos being taken of them without their permission. Even if they weren't in skimpy outfits it would be creepy to follow someone around and take pictures of them.

You honestly wouldn't find it creepy if you found out someone started following you around and taking pictures of you?

Taking a casual photo of a crowd is a lot different then finding a specific person and following them around without them knowing so that you can take pictures of them.

You're changing the subject. The point is that in order to ban surreptitious photography they'll have to ban all photography.

 

[Moral Panic]

I agree. And I think there is a substantive difference between "attendee going around sneakily taking pictures of female con attendees" and "attendee taking pictures of kiosks or Important People or wide angle shots of crowds that happen to have people in the frame who did not ask whether they wanted to be photographed." I think that if you take a wide angle shot, someone realizes they are in it, and tells you that they are uncomfortable being photographed, that the polite thing to do would be do delete that particular photo. But I don't think those photos are axiomatically bad, while the former are. And I think that it's self-evident from the way that the people in the OP described the problem that they were talking about the former, and not the latter. Unfortunately, we have people who are attempting to argue the issue by conflating the two, which requires people to explain, repeatedly, that not all photography is being circumscribed.

Well there are many different things

1. Upskirt and other creepshots
2. Candid photography of someone in the moment Example
3. Posed photographs
4. Posed photographs with people in the background.

Many people in this thread are saying that no.2 should not be allowed (obviously assuming it's not a staged shot). I have friends who are photographers so I will always side with them and their right to take pictures of people in public areas without having to ask for permission.

 

[G-Fex]

You're changing the subject. The point is that in order to ban surreptitious photography they'll have to ban all photography.

Here's the thing and it's my fault I didn't expand on this in my comments that are quite hateful (against creeps that is) .

I do not believe in banning photography, that's fine. Group shots, so much distance from someone doesn't seem too bad.

It's when it's up close without their knowing. That's invasive.

invasive is key here.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You're changing the subject. The point is that in order to ban surreptitious photography they'll have to ban all photography.

The article says they would like an advisory to outline what is appropriate surreptitious photography and what isn't. She even gives an example in the last line of the article. And notice that they use the word "Modify" and not "Ban".

Still, she'd like to see an advisory in the Comic-Con program against surreptitious photography, and a clearer statement from Geeks for CONsent. She found some fans were afraid to take photos, even when she was posing at a booth on the showroom floor.

"The kind of behavior that needs to be modified," she said, "is somebody taking a photo of you bent over while you're signing a print."

And I'm not changing the subject. It's pretty clear that they're not saying to ban all surreptitious photography, just the kind of surreptitious photography that is targeting specific people without them knowing. Not some kind of ban on all general Con shots where you have to get permission of every person who walked into the frame.

Literally the only type of photography they're trying to ban is the type that would get you fired from your job if you got caught taking the same pictures of your co-workers without their consent. If you get caught taking a bunch of upskirt shots of Shirley in accounting, she probably won't be too pleased and will report your ass.

 

[diaspora]

Here's the thing and it's my fault I didn't expand on this in my comments that are quite hateful (against creeps that is) .

I do not believe in banning photography, that's fine. Group shots, so much distance from someone doesn't seem too bad.

It's when it's up close without their knowing. That's invasive.

invasive is key here.

Invasive is key, though it needs to be understood that it's impossible for anyone other than the photographer to know whether they're taking a candid portrait versus a wide shot.

And I'm not changing the subject. It's pretty clear that they're not saying to ban all surreptitious photography, just the kind of surreptitious photography that is targeting specific people without them knowing. Not some kind of ban on all general Con shots where you have to get permission of every person who walked into the frame.

Literally the only type of photography they're trying to ban is the type that would get you fired from your job if you got caught taking the same pictures of your co-workers without their consent.

That's not really possible short of an invasion of actual personal space/ being followed.

 

[waxer]

No there doesn't. You're over thinking this. No one is going to be mad that they're in the frame of a shot of something else. It's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion based off that article. It's just people saying don't take pervy shots of girls bending over, or following them around to get pictures from different angles.

But there is a basis for it. A lot of people wont allow photos with children in them at school even in the background so they ban cameras completely. I know these are two different cases but its hard not to draw parallels. I Guess it is just some people dont want it to go to that extreme.

I have no understanding about whats so good about creep shots. If its the act or viewing the images. My partner would be happy to throw on anything I ask her to had I wanted that anyway. Or is it not sexual in that way.

 

[Cyan]

Literally the only type of photography they're trying to ban is the type that would get you fired from your job if you got caught taking the same pictures of your co-workers without their consent.

Not even that. The person quoted in the article is not trying to ban anything.

Here's the exact quote: "she'd like to see an advisory in the Comic-Con program against surreptitious photography."

An advisory.

An advisory.

Might as well set fire to the US Constitution.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Invasive is key, though it needs to be understood that it's impossible for anyone other than the photographer to know whether they're taking a candid portrait versus a wide shot.



That's not really possible short of an invasion of actual personal space/ being followed.

Which is exactly what they're claiming happened in the article.

Conventioneers told Geeks for CONsent they had been groped, followed and unwillingly photographed during the four-day confab

 

[G-Fex]

Invasive is key, though it needs to be understood that it's impossible for anyone other than the photographer to know whether they're taking a candid portrait versus a wide shot.

With zoom right? Right. I suppose it's complicated then.

Going back to my original topic of my original posts. I despise creep interviewers who demean these girls as the OP's article speaks about. I do hope that cons do something to get rid of them cause from what I've seen it just angers me how terrible they are.

 

[Flatline]

The article says they would like an advisory to outline what is appropriate surreptitious photography and what isn't. She even gives an example in the last line of the article. And notice that they use the word "Modify" and not "Ban".

And I'm not changing the subject. It's pretty clear that they're not saying to ban all surreptitious photography, just the kind of surreptitious photography that is targeting specific people without them knowing. Not some kind of ban on all general Con shots where you have to get permission of every person who walked into the frame.

Literally the only type of photography they're trying to ban is the type that would get you fired from your job if you got caught taking the same pictures of your co-workers without their consent. If you get caught taking a bunch of upskirt shots of Shirley in accounting, she probably won't be too pleased and will report your ass.

I repeat, it's hilariously unrealistic, will the advisory review every photo or will they monitor the floor for photos in the radius of women? These up-close photos aren't really up close, they're either zoomed in or cropped. You guys have used cameras the last 10 years, right?

 

[Giever]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but if I wore a costume to a con that people actually wanted to take pictures of a lot, I'd really hate for everyone to be asking me for consent each time. I'd rather they just take the pictures while I go about browsing the convention.

I get that my desire to avoid inconvenience is less of a significant concern than others' desires to avoid creepy photographs being taken of them, but I just thought I'd point out one possible annoyance from the cosplayer's side with the idea of "always ask for consent before taking a photo of a specific individual".

 

[MIMIC]

Wow, I JUST so happened to watch that TMZ show on FOX for the first time a few minutes ago and they were talking to lady whose friend was touched inappropriately (or rather sexually harassed) by an attendee. She said that the guy stuck his finger down her pants @_@

She said that if people don't stop acting like animals that women will stop coming to these events.

I don't understand how anyone can take it upon themselves to act like that.

 

[diaspora]

Which is exactly what they're claiming happened in the article.

Right, and stopping someone from invading personal space/ following other SDCC attendees around is fine.

With zoom right? Right. I suppose it's complicated then.

Going back to my original topic of my original posts. I despise creep interviewers who demean these girls as the OP's article speaks about. I do hope that cons do something to get rid of them cause from what I've seen it just angers me how terrible they are.

It doesn't really need to even be a zoom lens, two primes can be nearly the same size but have a radically different FOV; how does one differentiate between the two?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I repeat, it's hilariously unrealistic, will the advisory review every photo or will they monitor the floor for photos in the radius of women? These up-close photos aren't really up close, they're either zoomed in or cropped. You guys have used cameras the last 10 years, right?

They won't advise any photos. It'll most likely be a system you report people to security for. If you see someone taking creepy ass pictures of someone who obviously doesn't know. Tell the person being photographed and they can determine if they want the person to get shit for it.

They don't mean "SHOW US EVERY PICTURE YOU HAVE ON YOUR CAMERA BEFORE YOU LEAVE." when they say advisory. They mean putting up signs and raising awareness on what is appropriate behavior and what isn't.

Frankly it's getting sad that I have to explain this so in depth when it really isn't that hard of a thing to grasp.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It will be way quicker to just link you to the master than explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

I'm not a student of photography (or even an art critic at all), but my quick perusal of links there doesn't make it clear as to whether or not a lack of consent is integral. For instance, the link of Candid photography includes this:

Almost all successful photographers in the field of candid photography master the art of making people relax and feel at ease around the camera, they master the art of blending in at parties, of finding acceptance despite an obvious intrusive element - the camera.

I understand that such a succinct definition can't be all-encompassing, but there's almost an implied consent there. There's the sense that the skilled photographer can get natural shots for people that know they are being photographed. Mind you, this obviously isn't a requirement. The opening paragraph includes this:

Thus, the candid character of a photo is regardless of the subject's knowledge or consent as to the fact that photos are being taken, and regardless of the subject's permission for subsequent usage such as distribution, but related to the apparent absence of posing.

So obviously, candid photos include those which lack consent. But they're also making it clear that this isn't integral to the shot. Not wanting posed photos doesn't inherently mean taking a shot where there person is unaware of a picture being taken. Just that it's necessary for the person to be inconspicuous enough, or the photographer to have put the subjects at enough ease where they are not reacting to the camera's presence.

Mind you, I do understand that there are people out there that want to capture real (we can include quotations marks there optionally) moments from an event. And I don't think it's impossible for a photographer to take unobtrusive photos of patrons that didn't explicitly consent to having their photo taken, or that such photos need to be regarded as disrespectful to the subjects if they aren't consulted before or after the photo is taken.

Still, I do think that people should err on the side of soliciting permission from people that may not feel comfortable being the subject of photos. Further, I think that some candid shots can probably result in a clear consensus in regards to people finding it disrespectful. But I'm also not advocating that we necessarily need to tackle anybody with a camera that looks like they may be taking a picture of someone that isn't aware of it. The shot may be artful and respectful. But I'm not willing to give everyone with a camera pointed at a person not posing for a photo that benefit of the doubt.

 

[G-Fex]

It doesn't really need to even be a zoom lens, two primes can be nearly the same size but have a radically different FOV; how does one differentiate between the two?

You're right. I'm not knowledgeable about these things. I'm just aware of the ones i've seen that either passed by or just lingered behind cosplayers.

 

[diaspora]

They won't advise any photos. It'll most likely be a system you report people to security for. If you see someone taking creepy ass pictures of someone who obviously doesn't know. Tell the person being photographed and they can determine if they want the person to get shit for it.

They don't mean "SHOW US EVERY PICTURE YOU HAVE ON YOUR CAMERA BEFORE YOU LEAVE." when they say advisory. They mean putting up signs and raising awareness on what is appropriate behavior and what isn't.

Frankly it's getting sad that I have to explain this so in depth when it really isn't that hard of a thing to grasp.

You're delving into shitty behaviour where the camera itself and the photos aren't even really the problem.

 

[Timedog]

I have not been to one of these cons but I can just imagine a particularly terrible variant of 4Channer who secretly browses MRA reddits when no one is looking, showing up and feeling abnormally empowered and confident IRL when surrounded by other nerds, and reiterating to some female cosplayer (that he's angry at because he's afraid to talk to any woman he finds attractive, or if he doesn't find her attractive than she becomes the scapegoat for his woman troubles) the lewd comment that got him 15 thumbs up on an PUA Youtube video 7 months ago. Is this about right or pretty off-base?

That was the second longest sentence I've written in my NeoGAF posting history.

 

[Gotchaye]

I repeat, it's hilariously unrealistic, will the advisory review every photo or will they monitor the floor for photos in the radius of women? These up-close photos aren't really up close, they're either zoomed in or cropped. You guys have used cameras the last 10 years, right?

I don't go to cons, but I feel like I have experience dealing with a similar sort of problem, where there's a problematic type of behavior but it's a little difficult to lay down extremely clear rules which capture every instance of the problematic behavior but don't capture unproblematic behavior and which don't require excessive monitoring.

I happen to help moderate a fairly active internet forum. Part of that involves identifying problem posters and banning them. But it's "hilariously unrealistic" to pick out all and only people who need to be banned without doing a whole lot more work than anyone wants to do. So mostly I use the forum the way I would if I were a regular member, and if I see a post that jumps out at me as terrible, I'll look into things a little more closely and maybe issue a ban. Or sometimes members who see posts they think are terrible will let me know that I might want to keep an eye on someone or check out something they've done. Obviously this isn't going to catch everybody I might want to ban. But IMO it makes the forum I moderate a lot more pleasant.

Same thing here, right? If there are people around who are willing and able to do something about egregiously creepy behavior, even if they can't catch all instances of creepy behavior, lots of people will have a much better experience.

Edit: Also note that an "advisory" is not a council of judges. It's a notice.

 

[waxer]

If you cant check the photos and thus dont know if wide or tele then there aint jack you can do. The problem is only with those that take creepy photos so to speak then signs etc aint going to do jack. Same as a speed limit sign doesnt stop anyone that wants to go faster. So why bother. Past getting overeager defenders starting fights i dont see what any advisory will achieve. Essentially asking a community to police something aint going to end well. Even if they just notify of suspicious behaviour either no one will give a shit or there would be overload of complaints due to not knowing if something is complaint worth if you are not the camera person.

 

[diaspora]

I'm not a student of photography (or even an art critic at all), but my quick perusal of links there doesn't make it clear as to whether or not a lack of consent is integral. For instance, the link of Candid photography includes this:

I understand that such a succinct definition can't be all-encompassing, but there's almost an implied consent there. There's the sense that the skilled photographer can get natural shots for people that know they are being photographed. Mind you, this obviously isn't a requirement. The opening paragraph includes this:

So obviously, candid photos include those which lack consent. But they're also making it clear that this isn't integral to the shot. Not wanting posed photos doesn't inherently mean taking a shot where there person is unaware of a picture being taken. Just that it's necessary for the person to be inconspicuous enough, or the photographer to have put the subjects at enough ease where they are not reacting to the camera's presence.

What you're quoting is less about consent, and more I think about both:

1. The lack of awareness, which can be quite important, though not necessary every shot
2. Being at ease, which is less about asking for permission which I generally don't do with street photos, and more to do with the subjectsnot being taken out of their environment by the photographer.

Mind you, I do understand that there are people out there that want to capture real (we can include quotations marks there optionally) moments from an event. And I don't think it's impossible for a photographer to take unobtrusive photos of patrons that didn't explicitly consent to having their photo taken, or that such photos need to be regarded as disrespectful to the subjects if they aren't consulted before or after the photo is taken.

It's not impossible to take in the moment shots without getting explicit consent, but it's more often than not a way to take the subject out of the moment, or out of the environment and consequently losing the shot. If someone doesn't like being photographed, then by all means delete the picture if asked but getting the shot first is I think more important than potentially losing it by asking and receiving explicit consent.

 

[Dipz]

I would strongly suggest that everyone read the OP carefully, and not start complaining about things that are not in the OP. For instance, I would point out that the OP does not mention any sort of quixotic general ban on photography, but specific kinds of photography that they find harassing. There's no point in arguing about policies that aren't being suggested, so let's please avoid it.

And how would the implementation of that work? How would they determine the true intent of every photographer in a convention?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So much "figure out a perfect solution or do nothing at all" weirdness going on now.

 

[Dipz]

So much "figure out a solution or do nothing at all" weirdness going on now.

Fixed

 

[diaspora]

And how would the implementation of that work? How would they determine the true intent of every photographer in a convention?

You wouldn't, though you'd be able to determine the intent of attendees who are invading the personal space of others even if the camera is incidental at that point.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

If you cant check the photos and thus dont know if wide or tele then there aint jack you can do. The problem is only with those that take creepy photos so to speak then signs etc aint going to do jack. Same as a speed limit sign doesnt stop anyone that wants to go faster. So why bother. Past getting overeager defenders starting fights i dont see what any advisory will achieve.

I feel like this example is misguided. Firstly, the issue is that we need to first agree on the appropriateness of an issue. Like in a school zone, speeding may be a very serious problem that needs to be punished vigilantly, but most people will probably drive anywhere from 5 - 20 miles over the speed limit on a freeway because they simultaneously don't see the danger of it and also figure they won't get caught. And I think in many areas these aren't patrolled very vigilantly because it's deemed not worth it, thus reinforcing the notion that it's not very risky.

But I don't think it's an unsolvable issue provided there was agreement on speeding as dangerous. There are plenty of places where cops could set up effective speed traps that catch people speeding. I promise you, I get a couple of tickets speeding to work in the morning, and suddenly I'm going to start setting my cruise control to the speed limit all the time.

 

[The Broken Ska Record]

If you cant check the photos and thus dont know if wide or tele then there aint jack you can do. The problem is only with those that take creepy photos so to speak then signs etc aint going to do jack. Same as a speed limit sign doesnt stop anyone that wants to go faster. So why bother. Past getting overeager defenders starting fights i dont see what any advisory will achieve. Essentially asking a community to police something aint going to end well. Even if they just notify of suspicious behaviour either no one will give a shit or there would be overload of complaints due to not knowing if something is complaint worth if you are not the camera person.

Right. So if it doesn't work 100% of the time then it shouldn't be used. Thats kinda simple-minded, no?

 

[Volimar]

Mumei's anime warnings just don't convey the same fear that bish gifs do. Gotta toughen up that image!

Fixed

Considering all the "That won't stop a lot of people so it's a waste of time" complaints, I don't think that's fixed.

 

[Kinyou]

Your specific situation is one that could be argued either way, you could make a case for it being noteworthy in some way, and there's always the factor of consent being hard to get in this case - maybe a cool thing to do would be to take a picture and then ask for permission?

I think that's an option (and something someone like a press photographer should definitely do)

 

[waxer]

Right. So if it doesn't work 100% of the time then it shouldn't be used. Thats kinda simple-minded, no?

No Im saying advisory as in OP or at least as I understand it will never work at all. Other ideas may but simply advising people not to take photos will not stop the ones that want them from still taking them. Not only that but depending on the way its handled the community may try to self police and cause new issues and costs.
I very much doubt the problem this group has is with the sort of person a notice would stop. So you have to work out how to address the actual problem. I dont like the idea of paying part of my entry to an event on stuff like public awareness to the obvious when it doesnt work. Id happily pay more if increased security etc would help though.

Drunk driving ads do jack but a road block gets them off the road and punished as an incentive to not so again. Is there a road block for this situation.

 

[mugwhump]

No, not muh booth babes D:

Can't they just add more hubbahubba manmeat to balance it out?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

No, not muh booth babes D:

Can't they just add more hubbahubba manmeat to balance it out?

why

 

[The Broken Ska Record]

No Im saying advisory as in OP or at least as I understand it will never work at all. Other ideas may but simply advising people not to take photos will not stop the ones that want them from still taking them. Not only that but depending on the way its handled the community may try to self police and cause new issues and costs.

You're jumping to conclusions though. You assume the community will try to do things on their own and that it won't work. Why not try it? Why not have a larger police presence and instate a code of conduct? What would the harm be?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No Im saying advisory as in OP or at least as I understand it will never work at all. Other ideas may but simply advising people not to take photos will not stop the ones that want them from still taking them. Not only that but depending on the way its handled the community may try to self police and cause new issues and costs.

I'm going to belabor the speed limit example a little more and note that I think you're being unfair in regard to its efficacy. Let's say you raise the speed limit 10 MPH, or go so far as to get rid of it entirely get rid of a speed limit. You think people would still drive as fast as they do now, or do you think they'd drive faster?

 

[mugwhump]

why

because then everyone can be happy

 

[waxer]

I'm going to belabor the speed limit example a little more and note that I think you're being unfair in regard to its efficacy. Let's say you raise the speed limit 10 MPH, or go so far as to get rid of it entirely get rid of a speed limit. You think people would still drive as fast as they do now, or do you think they'd drive faster?

Dont we already have a speed limit with the current warning. Treat people with respect and dont do illegal shit basically. But people are ignoring it and we need a solution ie speed trap that falls within the law and cost without creating a whole new group of people being picked on.

 

[Amaya]

Oh, it was a logo on a 4.5" button. There is zero question that the button could be read from about 15 feet away.

What did you do to help her? You left her by herself while you hung out with your friends? I would have left with her.